Windows Everywhere? Wake Up, Microsoft! It's 2011!

With the 2011 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) now in the rearview mirror, the gadget blogs and tech industry cognoscenti are already scrambling to hype The Next Big Thing (tm)—an expected announcement about Apple's iPhone coming to the superior Verizon wireless network. And thank goodness, because it's time for a rational discussion about what really happened with Microsoft last week.

On Wednesday, Microsoft held a special briefing about its plans to port its mainstream Windows versions—and not some other product that uses the Windows brand—to non-x86-type hardware. More specifically, Microsoft will port Windows on "system on a chip" (SOC) hardware that will enable Microsoft's flagship product to run on devices as small as a tiny portable handset.

Wednesday evening, at its annual CES keynote address, the company then barely mentioned the initiative, and CEO Steve Ballmer specifically ignored the most prominent market for such hardware—iPad-like tablet devices—until the closing remarks of his speech.

When you recall that Ballmer had spent much of the previous year's CES keynote emphasizing a coming generation of tablet computers that still has yet to materialize, this new tactic suggests that Ballmer and Microsoft are either crazy or crazy like a fox.

Opinions differ.

As Microsoft's curiously short and devoid-of-true-surprises keynote ended Wednesday night, I did something I rarely do for live events: I sat on it. Rather than voice disappointment over Microsoft's inability to excite, I simply waited until the next morning, giving myself time to run over what I had heard. I then scoured the speech transcript looking for details I might have missed during the live broadcast. What I found was an admittedly long list of milestones and achievements (which I noted in my news story about the keynote the next day) and several mentions of new products and product features that would all ship over the next few months—nothing dramatic, but far from the claims that Microsoft had announced "nothing."

My take on the keynote was that Microsoft asserted a sense of confidence at a time when many of its closest advocates, followers, and allies were emitting an ever-increasing sense of alarm over the software giant's diminishing leadership role in the tech industry. But, over time, I'm beginning to wonder if the naysayers have a point.

With regards to the Windows SOC announcement, it's hard to underscore how little was really said. And it's worse than you might realize. In addition to the obvious—this move means that Microsoft's iPad response is still gestating deep inside some Redmond research lab—I'd point out that porting Windows to another hardware platform shouldn't be all that difficult. In fact, Windows was designed expressly for that purpose, though it's been a while since Microsoft has exercised this particular muscle: Modern versions of Windows are based on an NT core than was, itself, originally multi-platform, as it ran on x86, PowerPC, MIPS, and eventually the Digital Alpha chipsets.

(I don't mean to de-emphasize the amount of work that will go into making an x86-based OS, drivers, and application software running on ARM-type systems. But if this thing is wildly successful from a technical standpoint, what we'll get on the other side is simply Windows. It won't seem particularly revolutionary to actual users.)

This announcement also raises a number of questions that Microsoft isn't interested in answering at all. And again, I'm not talking about what this means for Microsoft's iPad response, which is absolutely a question Microsoft needs to answer. Instead, I'm looking at Microsoft's curiously humongous stable of embedded OSs, some of which are already based on mainstream Windows, and some of which aren't. What does this new strategy mean for those OSs?

And what about Windows Phone? Although many people—myself included—have pointed out that Microsoft's innovative new smartphone platform would be ideal for tablet-type hardware, Ballmer and company show absolutely no interest in that. In fact, in a Q&A last week, Ballmer said that the future was mainstream Windows, running on a variety of devices, including smartphones, tablets, set-top boxes, traditional PCs, and servers. If you're a Windows Phone advocate, as I am, that has to give you pause. If you're a potential Windows Phone customer, in fact, it should make you question the future of this platform beyond your two-year wireless network commitment. This isn't the way to inspire confidence in your customers. When was the last time you saw a CEO de-emphasize a just-released product for one that was two or three years away from fruition?

What this is, really, is a furthering of Microsoft's internally stated mantra, "Windows everywhere." Those in the know will recall that this actually started as "NT everywhere," but as Microsoft melded that technology into its one core product, the phrase changed a bit. How long has "Windows everywhere" been around? Windows NT Magazine founder Mark Smith wrote about it in 1998:

"Literally, this statement means Microsoft wants a version of Windows (i.e., Windows NT, Windows 98, Windows 95, Windows CE) to be everywhere an operating system (OS) can be," Smith wrote. "All that matters is the vision of "Windows everywhere.'"

So here we are, over 12 years later, and what has changed at Microsoft? Not much, apparently.

There are some differences between 2011 and 1998, however. This time, Microsoft has options, and can use other products—notably Windows Phone and even Windows CE versions that already run on SOC—instead of the one core product that refuses to die. But it won't, and this decision highlights a tunnel-vision complex at the top of Microsoft's ever-growing and insular executive chain. That is, the inability to change with the times comes straight from the top, and from those who stand to lose the most if some product other than Windows is used anywhere in the company. One wonders when the Xbox will pick up Windows branding.

What's curious is that Windows has already failed again and again when moved beyond the comfortable confines of the traditional PC (and server) world. After spending a decade pushing Windows on tablets—first through Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, and in the living room, first through Windows XP Media Center Edition—the percentage of people who actually use modern versions of those products is tiny. I'm guessing few of you even remember the Ultra-Mobile PC platform, which was yet another attempt to bring Windows to ultra-mobile devices years before the iPad even shipped; no one bought them. Designed for PC desktops, Windows is ill-suited for these new usage scenarios, and consumers have acknowledged that by staying away in droves.

This year, dozens of companies will ship Windows 7-based tablets and they will all fail. Instead, consumers will continue buying iPads, and they will buy Android-based tablets (and, possibly, the RIM PlayBook), because those products, unlike Windows tablets, have been created specifically for that market.

But Microsoft will push ahead with Windows regardless—damn logic and the increasingly pleading requests of its users—and we'll arrive at a point a few years from now when you can purchase this over-extended system on ever-tinier devices and perform such foolish acts as run Microsoft Office on a wristwatch-sized system. Sure, there will be UI concessions to the form factors, and Microsoft will once again overburden Windows with new interface paradigms that no one cares about. This is a company that doesn't learn from the mistakes of the past or grasp that Windows is not a nail it can simply hammer into any product or market.

One thing no one can argue about, however, is that Microsoft's response to the iPad threat is as plodding and slow-moving as anything else the software giant does. Although the work to port mainstream Windows to SOC has been going on for years, Microsoft Vice President Steven Sinofsky, who heads the company's Windows division, said last week that it would take Microsoft "two or three years" to bring this new platform to market.

I have to ask: If you perform an impressive engineering feat and no one buys the resulting product, is it still an impressive engineering feat? More to the point, is Microsoft about doing something because it can be done, or does it do what its customers need and want? If the answer is the former, please, do keep talking vaguely about engineering and do keep pushing Windows to every technological nook and cranny you can find. But understand, too, that when you wake from this engineering stupor, much of the world will have moved on to other companies and products.

There's only one way this story ends, unless Microsoft wakes up. Please, give us a sign!

Discuss this Article 33

- Windows running on ARM is a big deal because it makes CE redundant. If windows is modular enough we'll end up with one OS Kernel.

- Windows everywhere doesn't mean Windows Shell everywhere. You could imagine the Metro shell running on top of regular Windows.

- The problem is that Microsoft have put the OS migration to SoC as a dependency to address the tablet/slate market. IMO this is a major mistake and puts MS in catch-up mode in much the same way as they did with the phone.

Ballmer's success with the netbook against Linux is playing a part here. He's thinking that a tablet is really just a netbook and the same thing will happen again. What he's not considering is that a tablet requires a different UI and the investment in applications matters much less. Put simple, Microsoft doesn't have their legacy Windows to leverage in this market.

Even should windows on arm be the solution, why is MS leaving the tablet field empty for apple/android to fill in those 2/3 years? Move in a year windows phone 7 on tablets and have something really good to keep your customers with you. Which windows phone 7 developer won't publish a windows tablet 7 version of its apps when the bigger problem will be changing the screen resolution? Metro UI is so good, will sell like chocolate. Otherwise, once customers grow accustomed to android on their phone and their tablets, they will want a google os on their netbooks and pc too. Once they move to google, they will use google cloud services, not MS ones. If oems cannot have a decent tablet OS from microsoft, they will go android. Just look at ces dell event. Not a word on their windows phone 7 unit, tons of android so they can show unified tablet and mobile experience. Not addressing the tablet problem for longer will put at risk the whole MS ecosystem, that's why they need to react. They have what is needed, windows phone 7, silverlight, mature developers tools for them, a marketplace and so on. It's like dying for hunger with a warm cheesburger in your hands.

"This year, dozens of companies will ship Windows 7-based tablets and they will all fail. Instead, consumers will continue buying iPads, and they will buy Android-based tablets (and, possibly, the RIM PlayBook), because those products, unlike Windows tablets, have been created specifically for that market."

... shows some naivity about Microsoft and it's customers. Microsoft's custumers are IT professionals, enterprise customers, and OEMs. As long as consumers buy Windows computers at rock-bottom prices from the likes of Dell & HP, Microsoft will continue to thrive.

Will loyal Apple customers abandon Apple in favor of a Windows tablet? NO! But that doesn't mean that a Windows tablet/slate will be a failure either.

Tablet PCs have not been very successful because they were too expensive. Today, at $350 for a netbook to $500 for a notebook, these devices are extremely competitive against the iPad but they still do not have the attraction of the iPad and as long as Steve Jobs is at the helm at Apple, his marketing genius will see to that!

Remember that Apple sells APPLIANCES, Microsoft's OEMs sell TOOLS.

The last three years have seen the prices of portable (laptop/notebook/netbook) personal computers plummet. SoC (system-on-a-chip) strategies at Intel and elsewhere will keep those prices coming down.

Sure, Windows 7 needs to have a better UI for tablet/slate usage but this can happen very quickly. Perhaps with Windows 7 SP1. But why would Microsoft tell everyone to "wait for SP1" or worse "wait for Windows 8"?

I suspect Microsoft is "crazy like a fox" and as soon as one of their OEMs has developed a successful UI, Microsoft will license it back from them.)

In the end, measuring Microsoft success with Windows against Apple's success with iPod is a fruitless exercise.

@Jones - Ok, you win...but tell me - have you never heard the word compete used in the way that I used it? I am not asking if I am right or not...just wondering if you have ever heard it used in such a way.

Regardless of that, I am glad to see that you agree with me that the two companies do not threaten each others core markets in a meaningful way. (God, I hope that I worded that right, I'd hate for the language police to come back.)

look how the NFL trys to push American football in Europe. you can only make so much money/ profits from your base. MS needs to be the consumer electronic market to get a piece of that pie even if it means selling appliances.

In other words they need a response to the iPad market money and fast...

@Jones - Semantics on the word "compete". When a basketball team gets beat by 50 points, they are said to not have been much competition...even though they did actually "compete" in the game.

Since MS is a software company, they can develop software for the many tablet OSes out there, including iPad and Android. I hope that they do. They also can succeed, in the same way that Apple has by using the Windows Kernel in a variety of devices. Will they? Time will tell. But to state that they will undoubtedly fail is uneducated at best and lunacy at worst.

@Infiniteloop - Very childish response. Nice way to back up my statements.

No, not shifting anything, nor "stooping" to anything. You said Microsoft and Apple don't compete. They do. Their -success- in different markets is almost orthogonal, so the competition has, to date, little impact on the core businesses of each company. But, oh, they DO compete, and rather viciously. So, you're wrong about that that part.

You can't change the definition of a word to try and validate your earlier post. Perhaps you didn't say what you meant, but what you said was false.

"My favorite segment in this weeks show is when Dan and I talk about where Microsoft went wrong when they stopped thinking ahead, about Microsoft software everywhere, and instead they started thinking defensively, about Windows everywhere."

Nobody wants "Windows everywhere". People want something that works appropriately on the device they're using at that moment. Apple did not put OSX on a phone or tablet, they did something new. It's just amazing that Microsoft can figure this out. I suppose they can go on and on, with one failure after another, so long as the iron subsidy from Windows/Office is underwriting the stupidity.

It really would be better if Microsoft broke itself up. Then, at least, the other bits of the company wouldn't be encumbered by the requirement to protect Windows at all costs.

Their arrogance will bury this company and the dark ages of computing will finally be behind us when it does. I can hardly wait to see what Microsoft delivers in 36 months and where Apple and Google will be. This CES marks the beginning of the end. Sure they will hang on in the Enterprise for a few decades, largely due to their illegal monopolistic practices, mob like licensing tactics, and general lock in model, but consumers will get it and move on to platforms that are easier to use, more fun to use, and frankly more secure. Well done Balmy, A+ to you.

Hasn't it always been that way with Microsoft? I remember during the anti-trust trial that Microsoft was trying to claim that its web browser and OS were inseparable - that somehow the Justice department was meddling with Microsoft's "innovations" by insisting that the two be separated, that there were deep technical reasons for integrating the Windows OS and web browser into one inseparable program. I never did get a straight answer from any Microsoft apologist explaining what an "integrated" Windows+IE system offered that was superior to the "separated" OS X and Safari combination.

@Infiniteloop - Show me where I have defended Microsoft...please. What I have said is that Apple and MS barely compete in the markets where each is the leader and sells the defacto standard products. What I have said is that we do not know if MS has a response to the iPad and furthermore, as a company they do not NEED a response to the iPad. What I have said is that I evaluate solutions and choose the appropriate ones for me and/or the workforce that I support. What I have said is that I use and like Apple products, alongside of MS products, Android devices, Blackberry devices, and many others. What I have said is that you blindly support Apple to the point of selecting an online moniker that drips of fanboyism. What I have said is that I find your hobby of trolling websites and showing the level of your fear and loyalty to Apple in such ways that you come accross as Steve Jobs' jester.

Steve Balmer, Steve Jobs, Paul Thurrott, and most of the online community laugh at your type of behavior.

Feel free to tell me about name calling and all...it seems to be all you have. Your posts always follow the same pattern and are predictable.

Applause Paul, for your profound analysis, you hit the nail on the head. Microsoft should not name the WP7 a Windows phone but a Microsoft Phone or Zune or even better something else, like UPhone standing for the Ultimate Phone. And Tablets and Slate deserve their own OS with a HTML5 enabled browser and modern Apps development. Less is More. It's about time Steve Ballmer is replaced by a Real Visionary Leader and I don't mean Steve Jobs.

tayme, I agree with your assesment that MS and Apple are different companies, and further that MS does not NEED to have an answer for the iPad. But, the problem is that MS is trying to provide an answer to the iPad, which puts them in the position of acting like they need an answer and thus puts us in the position of thinking that they need an answer. Again, do they need an answer to the iPad.. no, but it seems like they want us to perceive that they need an answer (and that they have one coming).

cutesy little print incapable chrome OS devices that are a mere 50 dollars cheaper than windows pcs (the cost of a windows OEM license) aren't going anywhere. ipad is selling well but it is a far cry from the iphone splash and unlikely that apple can pull another home run now that anrdoid and windows 7 tablets are around. which leaves smart phones being the only relevant area, yet they are too underpower to ever replace the PC.

MS is safe for decades. Not because it is good, but because nobody is within lightyears of being better. cutesy consumptiond evices like the ipad and phones will never catch up to the amount of software available for decades on the pc.

what the pundits fail to realize is that the cries to replace microsoft with something identical are just silly, will not work and hasn't work any more than the linux deskto worked before.

so while MS may very well never be #1 in tablets, or phones, neither of these will ever replace billions and billions of computers sitting on desks around the world.

google and apple simple are doign too little, too late and that war was long fought and lost.

MS on the other hand has the chance to be the distruptor, and undercut apple and google in offerings in much the same way google and apple try today. will it pay off? who knows but MS is here to say for another 50 years or so. And then the chinese will rule all so it won't matter.

If Paul, with his access to MS does not know what is going on with the "Windows Everwhere" thing, then either MS is plodding along slowly as usual or has a big, well kept secret waiting to drop. Who knows???

But, saying that MS needs to respond to the iPad is a bit like saying that Apple needs to respond to Exchange or MSSQL or any number of other MS Enterprise products. I have said it before and I stick to it...MS and Apple are not the same type of companies. Its a bit like saying that John Deere needs to respond to the Chevy Volt. They both make products with wheels and engines, after all.

"A significant number of developers have disregarded Apple's advice on validating App Store receipts before making their software available through the store. As a result, many applications can be pirated."

This is outragious! Microsoft's failure to provide a road map for the future is a great disservice to its developer community. For those of us who have built our careers around Windows, not knowing what will come next is rather depressing and is nothing but FUD. For the mobile market, it does not so much matter which OS will be used (W7, WP7 or something new). Its not about the OS, but the lack of a clear road map. What am I now faced with is a total lack of direction. Thanks a lot MS, you just shot your most ardent supporters in the foot.

"What I have said is that Apple and MS barely compete in the markets where each is the leader and sells the defacto standard products."

That's false. They compete a LOT in markets where the other leads, but have limited success. From a marketshare perspective, Apple hasn't done well against Windows in desktop OS, but that's a legacy thing and is slowly changing. They compete really ferociously but have limited success against Microsoft.

Microsoft has fought tooth and nail for the mp3 player market and for phones; they've just failed miserably.

So, I think the execs at each company see it very differently than you do. Both companies (and Google) are engaged in a running fight to encroach on the other's turf. Both companies (and Google) have secure revenue streams from areas where they're dominant. From those beachheads they compete CONSTANTLY in new areas and trying to poach from each other.

You're discussing success, not competition. Microsoft has indeed had almost no success with any endeavors outside of Windows, Office, and arguably servers. Apple has limited results in the desktop OS market, but has some niche success there.

Now, the other issue is whether Microsoft needs to have a response to the iPad, the iPhone, the iPod. Well, the Zune and Windows Phone answer that question in two cases and we're still waiting for an answer on the iPad. However, Ballmer stressed it a year ago and precedent suggest that Microsoft will feel they cannot ignore the area.

Basically, if you do software you just can't ignore the fastest growing categories no matter how strong you are in old ones.

"This year, dozens of companies will ship Windows 7-based tablets and they will all fail. Instead, consumers will continue buying iPads, and they will buy Android-based tablets (and, possibly, the RIM PlayBook), because those products, unlike Windows tablets, have been created specifically for that market."

... shows some naivity about Microsoft and it's customers. Microsoft's custumers are IT professionals, enterprise customers, and OEMs. As long as consumers buy Windows computers at rock-bottom prices from the likes of Dell & HP, Microsoft will continue to thrive.

Will loyal Apple customers abandon Apple in favor of a Windows tablet? NO! But that doesn't mean that a Windows tablet/slate will be a failure either.

Tablet PCs have not been very successful because they were too expensive. Today, at $350 for a netbook to $500 for a notebook, these devices are extremely competitive against the iPad but they still do not have the attraction of the iPad and as long as Steve Jobs is at the helm at Apple, his marketing genius will see to that!

Remember that Apple sells APPLIANCES, Microsoft's OEMs sell TOOLS.

The last three years have seen the prices of portable (laptop/notebook/netbook) personal computers plummet. SoC (system-on-a-chip) strategies at Intel and elsewhere will keep those prices coming down.

Sure, Windows 7 needs to have a better UI for tablet/slate usage but this can happen very quickly. Perhaps with Windows 7 SP1. But why would Microsoft tell everyone to "wait for SP1" or worse "wait for Windows 8"?

I suspect Microsoft is "crazy like a fox" and as soon as one of their OEMs has developed a successful UI, Microsoft will license it back from them.)

In the end, measuring Microsoft success with Windows against Apple's success with iPod is a fruitless exercise.

@Infiniteloop - What in the world does someone leaving MS have to do with anything in this thread? Once again, you have proven your role here. Should I start Googling Apple flubs to post here for your enjoyment? Maybe these will keep you busy for awhile -

Their arrogance will bury this company and the dark ages of computing will finally be behind us when it does. I can hardly wait to see what Microsoft delivers in 36 months and where Apple and Google will be. This CES marks the beginning of the end. Sure they will hang on in the Enterprise for a few decades, largely due to their illegal monopolistic practices, mob like licensing tactics, and general lock in model, but consumers will get it and move on to platforms that are easier to use, more fun to use, and frankly more secure. Well done Balmy, A+ to you.

Microsoft Stack Master Class

Understand the complete Microsoft solution stack, how the products work together, and how to implement and maintain for a total datacenter and desktop solution. This course covers the latest technology updates including Windows Server 2016 and Windows 10 and will enable the new capabilities to be leveraged in your organization.